F 

\^9 
.81 \M 



AN ADDRESS 



—DELIVERED BEFORE THE- 



* i *■ 



U^ 



OCTOBER 1ST, i889, 



■BY- 



HON. H. P. hedges; 



SAG-HARBOR: 

J. H. HUNT, PRINTER. 




Class Fie>^ 



Book .$ ^ 1Ha 



AN ADDRESS 



—DELIVERED BEFORE THE- 



/ 



it)||olk 



■* 4 ♦ 



^.^ 



OCTOBER 1st, 1889, 



T> 



—BY 



HON. H. P. HEDGES, 



^^^- 



f^^ 



ADDRESS. 



-:o:- 



The settlements of Plymouth, Salem, Boston and those ad- 
jacent thereto would naturally be fixed by the voyagers on or 
near the ocean they had crossed and a harbor where supplies 
could be brought from the country they had left. There 
after, in the selection of sites at Hartford, Windsor, Wethers- 
field, Saybrook, New Haven, Gardiner's Island, Southold, 
Southampton, East-Hampton, other elements complicated the 
problem. The interior was a wilderness, the home of the 
savage and the wild beast. The progress of the traveler was 
slow, dangerous and the road uncertain and hard to keep. 
The ocean, bay and river were more easily crossed. Colonies 
located thereon were more easily supplied, visited, succored 
and defended. In the wilderness, man to man, the hostile 
Indian might equal the hostile Englishman. On the ocean, 
bay or river one small vessel of the latter could beat the canoes 
of a continent. Not by chance or accident, or without careful 
thought were the early settlements in this country so located 
that the settlers could be sustained, supplied, visited, suc- 
cored, defended. Thus fixed, the forest, the stream, the har- 
bor contributed game and fowl and fish to sustain the pioneer. 
Thus established, lie could export surplus products derived 
from the waters, the air or the earth. 

Lion Gardiner, from Saybrook Fort looking over the wa- 
ters of the Sound, saw with the eye of a soldier, a financier 
and practical business man the advantageous position of the 
beautiful isle that to this day bears his name. The Puritans 
of New Haven, from the heights of East and West Rock, saw 
over the waters the pleasant shores of Long Island, and very 



early, knowing its attractions, its beauty, its health, its 
abundance, purchased and colonized Soutnold. 

The Puritans of Lynn, embarking with a vessel under the 
command of Daniel How, left behind the territory of the New 
England colonies, and, preferring this island as a field of 
enterprise, settled at Southampton. 

The choice of the Puritans who settled in the Hamptons or 
at Southold is confirmed by the continuing verdict of the 
ages and of our own time. What attracted them has attract- 
ed succeeding generations until the places where they planted 
their colonies have become the summer resort of thousands. 

In the warm controversy concerning priority of settlement 
of Southold and Southampton I find little attention drawn to 
the precise question at issue or to the terms of the granting 
instruments. For these reasons chiefly I submit in the brief- 
est manner my views on this question in the sacred cause of 
historic truth a)id historic light. As a native of East-Hamp- 
ton and non-partisan inquirer I hope to do so free from 
prejudice or bias. The question is not whether some one 
individual first located in eitlier town. On that issue the 
settlement of Gardiner's Island, now in the bounds of East- 
Hampton, would give priority to that town and exclude both 
Southold and Southampton. The question is not where a 
church was first organized. Such organization might be lung 
after the settlement. Neither is it material which town first 
purchased from the Indians. They might — and did — locate 
in both towns prior to such purchase. Much less are the 
Indian deeds material. They are not the purchase, but evi- 
dence of a past purchase. The real question is, when was a 
settlement made in the name of and for the colonizini; com- 
pany by themselves or representatives of their number ? Such 
representatives commissioned to build houses, plant gardens, 
erect fortifications and accommodations for later arrival of its 
members, who did arrive, would thereby commence the 



settlement. Their occupation would be the actual occupation 
of the company. Later accessions would not commence, 
but simply augment the numbers of the colonists, Both 
Webster and Worcester t'ubstantially define the woid 
"settlement" as meaning occupation by settlors on the 
soil, and I mean it. Under date of March 10, 1639-40, 
by an agreement for the sale of their vessel to Daniel 
How, the persons therein named contract for the vessel 
"for the use of tlie plantacon," etc. ; that "said Daniel 
shall not sell this vessel without the consent of the ma- 
jority of the company :" "that the vessel shall be reddy at 
the Town of Lynne to transport such goods as the under- 
takers shall appoint — that is to say, three tymes in the year," 
etc. The tymes were fixed at the first, fourth and eight 
month. This agreement expressly recognizes the formation 
of a company to found and plant a colony looking to tha 
establishment of a church, or churches and a town. The ves- 
sel owned by the company was dedicated to this purpose and 
the dedication was recognized and respected in the agreement 
for sale. In thought, in resolve, in numbers, in means of 
access and means of support at this date a colony existed. 
(See Southampton Records, vol. 1, p. 1, etc.) To the eleven 
undertakers signing this agreement were afterwai'd added 
eight more signers accepted by them and two more in a final 
declaration, dated the fourth day of the fourth (probably) 
month. The patent of James Farrett, agent for the Earl of 
Sterling, dated April 17, J640, to "Daniel How, Job Sayre, 
George Wilbe and William Harker and their associates" 
gives to them the right "tositt down upon Long Island 
aforesaid, there to possess, improve and enjoy eight miles 
squaJe of land or so much as shall contain the "said quantity," 
etc. "And that they are to take their choice to sitt down 
upon as best suiteth them." The rent was to be fixed there- 
after by John Winthrop and the inhabitants "at their leisure" 



were required to purchase of the Indians having "lawful 
right" to said land. (Col. Hist, of N. Y., vol. 3, p. 62S, new 
series, vol. 13, old."* By this Farrett patent the grantees and 
their associates had the option to locate anywhere on Long 
Island the equivalent of eight miles square. Without deed of 
specific territory, they had what was better, an option like a 
modern land warrant to locate covering the whole Island and 
excluding location by others, until they had selected or been 
given a reasonable time to select their land. Their grip held 
all over the territory and excluded all others. As matter of 
law Farrett could not convey so as to defeat their priority of 
choice. If he was intelligent and honest he would not try to 
do it, and as agent for the earl he is presumed to be both 
honest and intelligent. Tiie emigrants had been tossed on 
the ocean, unsettled since theirarrival, looking for a residence 
and resting place, standing as if on the tiptoe of expectation. 
A grant to them of the desired spot "to sitt down" under the 
simile of a wayworn traveler was a verbal painting of their 
condition. When in 16G0, the Montauk Indians, hunted by 
the Narragansetts, had been driven to East-Hampton, in the 
counter bond to their conveyance, they reserved the right 
"again to sett down' at Montauk as expressive of their desire. 
(See K. H. Records, vol. 1, p. 174.) 

Remembering the dates of the disposal of the vessel and of 
the patent in March^ 1639 and April, 1640 (both meaning 
1640,) we find on record an account of the discovery by the 
Dutch, in the yacht Prince William, of a party of Englishmen 
attempting settlement at Cow Harbor; an order and expe- 
dition of twenty- five soldiers for their arrest, the advice given 
to surround them "unawares" at break of day, the arrest and 
march to Fort Amsterdam on the 15th of May, 1640, and 
the examination of Job Sayre, George Wilbe, John Farring- 
ton, PhiUip and Nathaniel Kirtland and William Harker, all 
named among the undertakers aforesaid. The examination of 



these six jjioneers discloses important facts ; exculpating 
themselves, they admitted or testified that How and Mr. 
Farrett cut down "the arms of the State ;" that these two had 
gone to Red Hill, (New Haven) with the sloop that landed 
them, with their commission," meaning, probablv, their deed 
of conveyance ; that they (the witnesses) left, on their arrest, 
"two men and one woman and a child there to take care of 
their goods ;" that they "had built a small house and were 
building another," not finished ; that they came "to plant and 
build dwellings ;" that "it was intended that twenty families 
should come ; and if the land was good they expected a great 
many people." These men were discharged on the 19th May, 
1640, then signing a writing reciting their coming to settle 
on the territory of the States General "without knowing the 
same, being deceived by Mr. Farrett. Scotchman," and a 
promise to remove from the territory "Immediately," [Vid. 
Col. Hist., vol. 2, p. 146, etc.] It is undisputed that an 
attempt to settle was made and defeated. Expelled from Cow 
Bay the eight men must take care of their goods, find their 
vessel and report to Howe and Farret. Where ? At New 
Haven. There was their little vessel and there had gone 
Howe, the captain, and Farret, the agent, who had "deceived 
them." Howe was as much interested in foundins; colonies 
as Farret. Thereby freights and profits multiplied. He was 
proprietor in many purchases to that end. He was acquaint- 
ed in New Haven and at home there on his vessel as much as 
anywhere. Subsequently both Howe and his son Jeremy 
removed from Lynn there. [See "History of Lynn" by Lewis 
and Newhall pp. 124 and 175.] Farret without doubt, went 
wherever called by interest and, without any fixed residence 
or strong ties elsewhere, could at New Haven overlook the 
territory in his charge better than at either Lynn or Boston, 
where sometime he was. The circumstances look to the con- 
tinuance of the vessel and these men with her for a time in 



the harbor of New Haven. Until the success or failure of the 
expedition was known, Lynn was too remote a waiting place 
and Cow Bay rather near for both Howe and Farret, who 
were hable to arrest knew it. After this expulsion the ex- 
pelled settlers would naturally, with their goods, rejoin the 
vessel at New Haven and claim that Farret should repay them 
the cost of transportation or barge hire and in his next patent, 
locating the territory purchased, he did agree to pay it. 
By deed dated June 12, 1639 (meaning 1640) Farret conveyed 
t) Edward Howell, Daniel How, Job Say re and their associ- 
ates all lands '^lying and being bounded between Peaconeck 
and the easternmost point of Long Island, with the whole 
breadth of said island from sea to sea, with all land and prem- 
ises contained in said limits, excepting those lands already 
granted to any person by me." * * * ''in consideration 
of barge hire, besides they being drove off by the Dutch from 
the place where they were by me planted, to their great 
damage, and with a competent sum of money in hand, paid 
before the ensealing and delivery of these presents, all 
amounting to four hundred pounds sterling." By instrument 
dated August 20, 1639 (meaning 1640,) Lord Stirling con- 
firmed this conveyance of June to Howell and others and also 
sales by Farret to John, Thomas, and Edward Farrington and 
Matthew Sunderland [Colonial History," Volume III., pp. 21 
and 22] Farret, by his power of attorney, had authority to 
make a first choice in the land covered thereby to the extent 
of 12,U00 acres, and in pursuance thereof had chosen Robbins 
Island and Shelter Island, sometimes called Farret's Island 
and hence the exception in his grant to Howell. [Vide 
Thompson's "History Long Island," Volume II, 118 page. 
Thus by the deed of June Farret becomes a witness of this 
attempt to settle, in his own language, "where they were by 
me planted" — a vvitness to the expulsion, the payment of 
"barge hire," the large consideration of ^400, and by his 



deed is estopped from denying these facts. Dutch and Eng- 
lish alike were extending their settlements to fortify by pos- 
session conflicting territorial claims. If Farret designed to 
plant this company at the West as an intended barrier pre- 
venting Dutch aggression and protecting contemplated settle- 
ments further East, as is probable, he knew and anticipated 
the danger of expulsion. He knew the necessity that his 
vessel should be near at hand if his experiment failed and 
Howe knew the like. We prove this sloop to be at New 
Haven, not Lynn, with urgent motives to remain there and 
await results. It is there that the pioneers expelled from Cow 
Harbor probably rejoined the captain, Howe, a co-owner and 
proprietor, ?md Farret, the agent, with their "provisions" and 
planting and carpenter's tools, and from thence they prob- 
ably pursued their voyage. No evidence is known showing a 
return to Lynn or any necessity thereof before effecting a set- 
lement. Farret's deed in June was probably a deed to a 
company then located on the ground between "Peconic" — an 
Indian settlement at the head of the Bay [Vide ''Colonial 
History of New-York," Vol. 3, p. 600] — "and the eastern- 
most point of the island." The indignant reproaches of the 
company would constrain Farret to quiet them forthwith by a 
satisfactory deed. All the circumstances look that way. 

There is every presumption for the continuance of the voy- 
age and location at this date, and the burden of proof to the 
contrary is on those denying it. Right here let me say that 
this deed of June not only covers Southampton, but in the 
main, with the exception of the pre-empted islands Farret 
chose, might cover Southold by the terms, ''With the whole 
breadth of the island from sea to sea." Certainly if Southold 
had been purchased this deed should not have been bounded 
so as to include "the whole breadth of the island." In this 
view the deed of June is evidence of the Southampton pur- 
chase, and . more, is evidence that this purchase was anterior 



8 

to because inconsistent with a co-existent or anterior pur- 
chase of Southold territory as a town. In referring to the 
instrument of June as a deed I use rather popular freedom 
thaii legal strictness. The deed of April was the deed relied 
on as the deed or conveyance by the settlers, accepted as 
such by all parties and shown to be such by the indorsement 
of Winthrop thereon fixing the amount of rent to be paid 
yearly to the Earl of Stirling ''Made and dated 20, S, 1G41." 

It will be clearly understood that I do not mean to say all 
the settlers were then there or that a church was organized or 
civil government instituted, but do mean to say that these 
pioneers expelled from the West did establish themselves at 
Southampton in June and then and there build houses for 
hteir coming associates, just as they had built before at the 
place of expulsion. The delay made it more imperative to 
hasten the settlement in Southampton. The option in the 
first deed covered all the island, and strictly no new deed was 
required, but simply an agreement of the parties on the loca- 
tion of the optional tract. The location naturally would be 
fixed by view of the parties on the spot, and acquiescence in 
the location by evidence in writing would not be given until 
after this view. While the deed of June 12 did not absolutely 
limit the eight miles square, except to prevent locating west 
of Peconic, it seems to have been made in confirmation of 
that in March, which was really the deed of premises unde- 
fined until the June writing defined them, probably after view 
thereof. The option "to sitt down" in April would not call 
for the locating instrument in June until the grantees had 
"sitt down.' 

The journal of John Winthrop singularly confirms the view 
suggested. Under date ot 1640, fourth month (that is June,) 
it recites the purchase of land at the west end of the island ; 
the agreement for the Indian right there ; the commencement 
of building by ten or twelve men "with provisions ;" the ar- 



rest and discharge, and then those words ; "Upon this the 
same men, on finding themselves too weak and having no 
encouragement to expect aid from the English, desisted that 
place and took another at the east end of the same island, and 
being now about forty families they proceeded to their plan- 
tation and called one Mr. Pierson, a godly learned man and a 
member of the church of Boston, to go with them." Con- 
sider : this contemporary witness, knowing all the history of 
these events, in his journal of June, 1640, speaks of this set- 
tlement by the Lynn men at the end of the island as an 
accomplished fact. Confirmed by circumstances and by this 
competent witness, the evidence of settlement in June, 1640, 
would seem to be conclusive. By "settlement," I mean the 
actual occupation of the premises conveyed or part thereof by 
the company of grantees or a part thereof in their name for 
them. In that sense, in June, 1640, the Town of Southamp- 
ton was settled. 

The Southold claim tor priority of settlement is based on 

four grounds : 

I. Southold is older by purchase of the Indians. 

II. Southold is older by renting, purchase and improvement 

of lands. 

III. Southold is older by its union in civil government. 

IV. Southold is older by its organized church. 

I. It is conceded that the settlement of both towns preceded 
the Indian purchase. [See "Whitaker's History," page 39.] 
The deed of December 13, 1640 for Southampton recites a 
previous payment of part consideration. A deed is not a 
purchase, but is evidence of a previous purchase. Conceding 
a purchase of Southold in August, it is not evidence of settle- 
ment prior to June, 1640, and is no conclusive evidence of 
purchase there anterior to the Southampton purchase. 

II. It is claimed that Matthew Sunderland was settled in 
Southold in 1639 and that Richard Jackson's deed from Far- 



10 

ret, dated August 15, 1G40, and building a house and sale of 
house and land to Thomas Weatherby, mariner (and, I think, 
judging from location, a pilot,) by deed dated October 25, 
1640, both indicate a prior settlement in Southold anterior to 
that in Southampton. But this deed from Farret to Jackson 
in August is antedated by Farret's deed for Southampton in 
June, and proves the priority of Southampton if it proves 
anything. Sunderland's settlement in Southold is a claim 
based upon a supposed lease of land there and payment of 
rent. On pages 201-2-3-4, Vol. 1, Southold Town Records, 
are recorded two leases, both dated June IS, 1639, from Far- 
ret to '^Matthew Sunderland Seaman, at Boston, in New Eng- 
land." The land leased is in Oyster Bay and on the sides of 
Oyster Bay Harbor, and not in Southold. One receipt is for 
rent of land at "Oyster Baj^," the other for rent of land at 
''Boston Bay," possibly an error for Oyster Bay. Neither re- 
ceipt nor any known receipt of the dates named shows pay- 
ment of rent for land leased in Southold. la tha Colonial 
Records, Vol. 14, old series, Vol. 3, new series, p. 500, it ap- 
pears that this rent paid was for land in Oyster Bay. The 
leases, therefore, are affirmative evidence that Sunderland was 
then not in Southold, but a "seaman at Boston" locating after- 
wards at Southold, precisely when is uncertain. The con- 
firmation of Farret's conveyances by Lord Stirling, including 
those to Howell and others and Sunderland, purporting to be 
dated August 20. 1639, confirms his Oyster Bay purchases, 
and so far as we know nothing in Southold. This date, 1639, 
evidently is a mistake for 1640, made, peihaps, in copying, 
and is corjected by the date of deed of Farret of the 17th 
April. The same error in the year occurs in the deed of June 
12. 

in. Since the authorities of New Haven took title to the 
original site and territory of Southold, and it became thereby 
an integral part of the mother colony, of necessity its union 



11 

therewith followed. Rut neither unioQ nor settlement prior 
to June 1640, appears. 

IV. The formation of the Southold Church in October ant- 
edates that of Southampton in November, 1640, about one 
month— the former in New Haven, the latter in Lynn. 

A settlement on the soil may or may not antedate a church 
organized elsewhere to locate there and is inconclusive on the 
question. 

In respect to its union with the mothei colony and the 
formation of its church. Southold sustains her priority ; in 
respect to actual occupation of the soil by planters, with in- 
tent to found both church and town in the nam- of and for 
the company and building, clearing, planting and preparing 
therefor ; in respect to the ownership of a vessel to further 
the settlement of the projected colony and augment its numb- 
ers ; in respect to the written constitution of undertakers as 
early as March 1640— in all these essential elements which 
may fairly constitute the settlement not of one or two individ- 
uals as such, but of a community, the Town of Southampton, 
in truth, is entitled to priority. 

wood's history, 

Silas Wood, dating the settlement of Southold prior to that 
of Southampton, expressly states that the settlements of the 
English towns are by him dated from "their respective pur- 
chase of the natives" (p. 13.) Dating from the Indian deeds 
he fixes the settlement of Southold in October, and Southamp- 
ton in December, 1640 (p. 10 and 13. 
prime's history. 

Prime, assigning the priority to Southold (p. 64,) states 
that he dates the origin of the towns, etc., ''from the time of 
the actual association of their respective inhabitants into a 
community for the exercise of civil or ecclesiastical govern- 
ment," ib. While the tests assumed by Wood and Prime are 
inconsistent with each other, they are inconsistent with the 



12 

acta. The constitution written in the cabin of the Mayflow- 
er and the constitution of the undertakers of Southampton 
preceded actual settlement, and the settlement of both South - 
old and Southampton antedates the Indian deeds. Wood 
and Prime state no attested fact contradicting the occupation, 
as herein claimed. The third patent of Farret, limiting the 
eight miles square to ^'grounds layed out and agreed upon," is 
recited in Thompson vol. 1, p. 82S, and the date there omit- 
ted is given in Prime as Jnly 7, 1640 (vid. p. 192.) The 
minute specification of boundaries in this deed at the west of 
Shinnecock, "where the Indians draw over their canoes," and 
at the east, "including the east line of the neck or island over 
against Farret's Island," argues an acquaintance with lo- 
calities probably unknown, except to settlers on the spot, and 
this reference in Prime makes him an unconscious and there- 
fore more weighty witness against the statement of his history 
Thompson's history. 

In the first edition of Thompson he admitted the priority of 
Southold. 

In the second edition, after more deliberation, he recites 
the Journal of Winthrop, as authority and makes no such ad- 
mission, Vol. I, p. 324, and on. Hence he is a weighty wit- 
ness to the prior claim of Southampton. 

BAYLES' history OF SUFFOLK COUNTY. 

Bayles, speaking of the expulsion from Cow Bay of the ad- 
venturers, says: "Some time during the month of June" (they) 
"commenced the settlement of Southampton," p. 305. Of 
Southold he writes : "The first settlement of this town was 
made in September, 1640," p. 360. 

MUNSELL's HISTOrY OF SUFFOLK COUxVTY. 

In the very careful examination of this question by William 
S. Pelletreau, as impartial as careful, the results reached are 
that "there can no longer be any doubt that Southampton was 
settled in June 1640." See article Southold, p. 9. The deeds 



IS 

of Farret to Jackson and Jackson to Weatherly, recorded in 
Southold records, vol. 1, pp. 112, 113, are dated 1640 and 
not 1639. Pelletreau fails to find any evidence of settlement 
of Southold as early as June, 1640. 

moore's index. 

No more thorough or careful antiquarian of Southold is 
known than Charles B. Moore. He writes of Minister Young : 
"1640, October, organized a church at New Haven to be 
located at Southold." 

holmes' annals. 

Holmes, writing of the expulsion, says : "The adventurers 
now removed to the east end of the island, where, to the 
number of forty fiimilies, they settled the Town of Southamp- 
ton." p. 314. 

Hubbard's history of new England. 

Hubbard's recital after the expulsion implies an immediate 
removal and settlement at the east end of the island and Note 
1 thereto at the foot of the page dates the settlement thus : 
"I, in June, 1640." 

OGILBy's history of AMERICA. 

This book was printed in London in 1671, and while 
living men knew the facts. On page 161 we read : "About 
the year 1640 by a fresh supply of people that settled in Long 
Island was there erected the twenty-third town called Soutli- 
ampton, by the Indians Agawom," which gives priority as a 
town in number earlier than is given to Southold, and the 
same priority is given in Edward Johnson's "Wonder Work- 
ing ProvidcRce." See chapter XVIII of "The Planting of 
Long Island," and in Lechford's "Plain Dealing or News from 
New England," p. 101. 

BRODHEAD's history of new- YORK. 

This historian, reciting the expulsion, writes of it as lead- 
ing "to the immediate settlement of the town of Southamp- 
ton," vol. 1, p. 300. 



14 

This examination, prompted by no narrow, no illiberal, no 
jealous spirit, concluding in finding priority of settlement at 
Southampton, finds priority of union and ecclesiastical govern- 
ment at Southold. At the expiration of nearly two and a half 
centuries the organizing supremacy of Southold, the radiant 
genius of her great lawyers, the profound learning of her ac- 
complished historian, the varied attainments of her efficient 
jonrnalists, are undimmed. From her ample domains were 
cirved the towns of Shelter Island and Riverhead, organized 
as at this day. Within these two towns flourish the free and 
self-sustaining institutions of church and state. Within the 
remainin": limits of the ancient Town of Southold her orijan- 
izing genius has upheld these institutions and created withhi 
herself a company for insurance, a bank for savings and two 
for circulation, all ministering to the prosperity of her people; 
all conducted with consummate wisdom and sterling honesty^ 
all enlarging their sphere of operation on no uncertain basis. 
To the learning, the wisdom, the patriotism, the courtesy, 
the unfading honor of the old town and her sons, we pay our 
willing tribute with our parting word : 

' 'Let foplings sneer, let fools deride. 
Ye heed no idle scorner- 
Free hands and hearts are still your pride, 
And duty done your honor. 
Ye dare to trust, for honest fame, 
The jury time empanels, 
And leave to truth each noble name 
That glorifies your annals." 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESi 





'Hill III 1 1 III III llllllllll 

014 221 025 3 ^ 



